Objective ST.2 Provide affordable and accessible public transportation options

Indicators, Development Targets and Policies/Design Strategies

Indicators Development Targets Policies/Design Strategies
Primary
a. Proportion of commute trips made by public transit

Does the project incorporate strategies that would result in a significant increase in trips made by public transportation by addressing:

1) Transit:

Benchmark: Is the project within 1/2 mile of regional transit station (e.g., BART, Cal Train) OR does the project include dedicated shuttle trips to regional transit, with timing and frequency based on estimates of area demand? AND is the project within 1/4 mile of a local transit stop?

2) Transit:

Benchmark: Is the project within 1/4 mile of a major transit corridor?

3) Transit:

Benchmark: Does the project provide adequate light, shelter and space to sit at all bus stops, with enhanced amenities at key stops?

4) Transit:

Benchmark: For ground floor commercial uses that are within immediate sightline/walking distance of a surface transit stop, does the project provide sheltered, well-lit, publicly displayed real-time bus arrival information at regular intervals (e.g., Next-Bus) and/or stay open to the public for extended hours (e.g., cafes, bookstores, bars, institutional building lobbies)?

See also: Development targets for ST.1a – e., #1-4, also support public transit as an alternative to driving and increase the transparency of the costs of single occupant motor vehicle use.
  • Establish a residential transit pass program funded by monthly or annual homeowners' fees. The transit pass program should subsidize free or discounted passes for below market rate units.1-3
  • Work with local and/or regional transit agencies to provide subsidized transit passes to tenants in below market rate units and other transit-dependent tenants (e.g., persons with disabilities, seniors, and youth).1-3
  • Provide adequate lighting and obstacle-free sidewalks between buildings and transit stops through collaborations between developers and local responsible agencies.4
  • Make pedestrian access to public transportation safer and encourage transit ridership by improving walking environments to and around public transit stops through measures such as more pedestrian scale lighting, wider sidewalks, and visible, safe pedestrian crosswalks. Funding could be provided through a development agreement or other means. 5,6
  • Build bike lanes and add transit amenities - including lighting, shelter, and seating - on streets and transit stops adjacent to new development sites.7
  • Display real-time transit information in the building entryways and lobbies.8
  • Encourage banks and mortgage companies to offer location efficient mortgages to homebuyers in walkable, transit rich areas. These mortgages take into account the money homebuyers will save by reducing or eliminating private automobile usage, which increases the amount of money they are able to borrow for a mortgage. 9,10
  • Provide no-cost shuttles between worksites, homes, and regional public transit.11,12
  • Implement parking pricing strategies to reduce vehicle trips and traffic from people looking for free parking through strategies including implementing variable rate parking, encouraging off-street parking, offering parking cash-outs, unbundling parking, and taxing land devoted to parking at same rates as other uses. 13
  • Improve the safety and desirability of pedestrian walking environments within and between neighborhoods and to key destinations through improved lighting, wider sidewalks, and visible, safe pedestrian crosswalks, through a development agreement or other means to make pedestrian access to public transportation safer and encourage transit ridership.14,15
  • Prioritize development projects located near high capacity, frequent, and reliable public transit.16
  • Require or incentivize employers to subsidize employees who commute to work via mass transit, bicycle or foot.17,18
  • Ensure that all employees have access to tax incentives for mass transit (e.g., commuter check programs). 19
  • Provide a dedicated central space to display information about public transit and other alternative transportation options (e.g., bike lanes, car-sharing, car pooling) in the neighborhood, residential or employee facilities.20,21
b. Proportion of households with 1/4 mile access to local bus or rail link

Same as above.
c. Local transit service frequency, morning peak commute

Same as above.
d. Proportion of households within 1/2 mile of regional public transport

Same as above.
e. Proportion of workers with 1/2 mile access to regional public transport

Same as above.
f. Proportion of average income spent on transportation expenses

Benchmark #1: Does the project subsidize discounted public transit passes for households with incomes <200% of the Federal poverty level (e.g., if transit passes are included in homeowners associations fees, they are provided at a reduced cost)?

OR

Benchmark #2: Is the project within ½ mile of a location selling Muni Lifeline Fast Passes (discounted MUNI monthly fast passes for San Francisco Residents with incomes at or below 200% of the Federal poverty level)?
g. Proportion of households within ½ mile of a location selling Muni Lifeline Fast Passes

Same as above.

Health-based Rationale

  • Research has found that proximity to public transit helps to determine travel choice.22
  • Twenty-nine percent of people using transit to get to work meet their daily requirements for physical activity from walking to work.23

  • “Neighborhoods characteristics shape whether people travel by transit, walking or biking versus driving.  These factors are commonly referred to as the "5 Ds," and include: 1) Net-Residential Density: "denser developments generate fewer vehicle-trips per dwelling unit than less dense developments"; 2) Job-Housing Diversity - "having residences and jobs in close proximity will reduce the vehicle-trips generated by each by allowing some trips to be made on foot or by bicycle"; 3) Walkable Design - "improving the walking/biking environment will result in more non-auto trips and a reduction in auto travel" (with synergistic effects with density and diversity); 4) Destinations - "households situated near the regional center of activity generate fewer auto trips and vehicle-miles of travel";  5) Distance to Rail Mass Transit Station - "transit ridership rates among station-area residents increase exponentially as the distance to a rail station declines.  Land use and transportation planning that does not incorporate the above factors contributes to increases in miles driven in motor vehicles, along with the associated hazards from air and water pollutants, noise, and vehicle collisions.  Heavy volumes of local vehicle traffic also create traffic “hotspots” and contribute to unfair burdens of air pollution, noise, and stress for those living adjacent to busy streets and highways, and degrade the environment for walking, biking, and public transit.”24

  • Walking or biking to work helps people meet minimum requirements for physical activity. Twenty- nine percent of people using transit to get to work meet their daily requirements for physical activity from walking to work.25  Health benefits of physical activity include a reduced risk of premature mortality and reduced risks of coronary heart disease, hypertension, colon cancer, and diabetes mellitus.26

Established Standards

  1. SF Planning Code Sections 155.1, 155.2, 155.4, and 155.5 require bicycle parking in city-owned and leased buildings; city-owned and privately-owned parking garages; commercial buildings; and residential uses. The number of spaces required by building size and type of use are detailed in the SF Planning Code. SF Planning Code Section 155.3 requires shower facilities and lockers in new commercial and industrial buildings and existing buildings undergoing major renovations (with existing costs at least $1,000,000); the required number of showers and lockers varies by building size and type of use. SF Planning Code Section 166 requires car share parking spaces in newly constructed residential buildings or buildings being converted to residential uses that provide parking when they include 50 or more residential units (50 - 200 units = 1 space; 201 or more units = 1 space + 1 space for every 200 dwelling units over 200). Available at: http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?sid=5&browseAllCodes=San%20Francisco
1. Transportation and Land Use Coalition. "It Takes a Transit Village: How Better Planning Can Save the Bay Area Billions of Dollars and Ease the Housing Shortage" http://www.transcoalition.org/reports/it_takes_transit_village.pdf
2. University of Washington Regional Visioning Project. Tools: Location Efficient Mortgages, Seattle, Washington http://depts.washington.edu/visions/ToolsExamples.htm
3. Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission. TransLink for Transit Oriented Development (TOD): Pilot Project http://apps.mtc.ca.gov/meeting_packet_documents/agenda_1087/11_Translink_for_TOD.pdf
4. Los Angeles Business Journal "Developer to spend millions upgrading city sidewalks: South Group pays for downtown work city won't do" http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6396705/Developer-to-spend-millions-upgrading.html#abstract
5. San Francisco Better Streets Plan. http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/Citywide/Better_Streets/index.htm
6. Florida Department of Transportation "Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Handbook" http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/ped_bike_standards.shtm#Florida%20Ped%20Handbook
7. Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe" http://www.vtpi.org/puchertq.pdf
8. Bay Area Rapid Transit. BART Do-it-Yourself Displays http://www.bart.gov/schedules/developers/displays.aspx
9. Location Efficient Mortgages http://www.locationefficiency.com/
10. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Transport Demand Management: Location Efficient Development and Mortgages http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm22.htm
11. University of California, San Francisco Shuttle Bus Program http://www.campuslifeservices.ucsf.edu/transportation/shuttles/
12. New Jersey Department of Transportation: Commute Alternatives Employer-sponsored Shuttles http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/smartmoves/empshuttles.shtm
13. Victoria Transport Policy Institute " Parking Pricing: Direct Charges for Using Parking Facilities" http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm26.htm
14. San Francisco Better Streets Plan. http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/Citywide/Better_Streets/index.htm
15. Florida Department of Transportation "Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Handbook" http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/ped_bike_standards.shtm#Florida%20Ped%20Handbook
16. Center for Transit Oriented Development http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/tod
17. SF Environment. Commuter Benefits http://www.commuterbenefits.org
18. San Francisco Chronicle "Emeryville firm pays employees to bike" http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/30/BUQF121EKO.DTL
19. SF Environment. Commuter Benefits http://www.commuterbenefits.org
20. North Bethesda Transportation Center: Customized Community Resource Packages http://www.nbtc.org/community.html
21. Clean Air Day Canada: Lobby Display http://www.cleanairday.com/html/Activities.php#lobby
22. Ewing R, Frank L, Kreutzer R. Understanding the Relationship between Public Health and the Built Environment: A Report to the LEED-ND Core Committee. 2006.
23. Besser LM, Dannenberg AL. Walking to public transit: steps to help meet physical activity recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(4):273-80.
24. Lee R, Cevero R. 2007. The Effect of Housing Near Transit Stations on Vehicle Trip Rates and Transit Trip Generation: A Summary Review of Available Evidence. California Department of Housing and Community Development and the California Department of Transportation.
25. Besser LM, Dannenberg AL. Walking to public transit: steps to help meet physical activity recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(4):273-80.
26. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Increasing Physical Activity: A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. October 26, 2001.